Now Long Non-Coding RNA Makes Proteins: ENCODE 1, Dan Graur 0

OT: The Most Frivolous Criticism (Of Darwin's Doubt) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkT5wn_K8JIbornagain77

June 24, 2014

June

06

Jun

24

24

2014

04:17 PM

4

04

17

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Moreover, these code for unique ORFan proteins which are not associated with other proteins,,

Translation of Small Open Reading Frames within Unannotated RNA Transcripts in Saccharomyces cerevisiae - May 9, 2014 Excerpt: Our analysis of the global landscape of expressed transcripts in yeast revealed hundreds of previously uncharacterized RNAs that do not map to annotated, protein-coding gene loci.,,, Moreover, analysis of published genome-wide expression data in mESC cells revealed a similar percentage of mammalian lncRNAs are also sensitive to NMD.,,, Our present findings reveal additional protein coding capacity within the yeast genome, but it will not be unexpected to learn that the remarkable complexity that continues to be uncovered in this single-celled eukaryote will also be found hidden in the genomes of other, more complex organisms, including humans. http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(14)00398-2

A short history as to how ORFans genes/proteins are severely undermining Darwinian predictions (because the percentage of completely unique ORFan Genes which encode for unique proteins keeps growing) is gone over here by Dr. Paul Nelson:

Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166 Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome - Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten - 2008 Excerpt: We have found greater than 139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered. http://www.paulyu.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Estimating-the-size-of-the-bacterial-pan-genome.pdf

At the 12:40 minute mark of the following 'The Dictionary of Life' video, Dr. Nelson describes the breaking point for Darwinian scenarios from the genetic evidence:

The Dictionary of Life | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zJaetK9gvCo#t=760s The essential genome of a bacterium - 2011 Figure (C): Venn diagram of overlap between Caulobacter and E. coli ORFs (outer circles) as well as their subsets of essential ORFs (inner circles). Less than 38% of essential Caulobacter ORFs are conserved and essential in E. coli. Only essential Caulobacter ORFs present in the STING database were considered, leading to a small disparity in the total number of essential Caulobacter ORFs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202797/pdf/msb201158.pdf

This current study on Yeast reminds me of this other study on Yeast from a while back that you highlighted Dr. Hunter:

Here Are Those Incongruent Trees From the Yeast Genome - Case Study - Cornelius Hunter - June 2013 Excerpt: We recently reported on a study of 1,070 genes and how they contradicted each other in a couple dozen yeast species. Specifically, evolutionists computed the evolutionary tree, using all 1,070 genes, showing how the different yeast species are related. This tree that uses all 1,070 genes is called the concatenation tree. They then repeated the computation 1,070 times, for each gene taken individually. Not only did none of the 1,070 trees match the concatenation tree, they also failed to show even a single match between themselves. In other words, out of the 1,071 trees, there were zero matches. Yet one of the fundamental predictions of evolution is that different features should generally agree. It was “a bit shocking” for evolutionists, as one explained: “We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 yeast.” In fact, as the figure above shows, the individual gene trees did not converge toward the concatenation tree. Evolutionary theory does not expect all the trees to be identical, but it does expect them to be consistently similar. They should mostly be identical or close to the concatenation tree, with a few at farther distances from the concatenation tree. Evolutionists have clearly and consistently claimed this consilience as an essential prediction. But instead, on a normalized scale from zero to one (where zero means the trees are identical), the gene trees were mostly around 0.4 from the concatenation tree with a huge gap in between. There were no trees anywhere close to the concatenation tree. This figure is a statistically significant, stark falsification of a highly acclaimed evolutionary prediction. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/here-are-those-incongruent-trees-from.html

Verse and Music:

Matthew 13:33 He told them still another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough." Mercyme - All Of Creation - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkdniYsUrM8

bornagain77

June 24, 2014

June

06

Jun

24

24

2014

03:36 AM

3

03

36

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link